Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31602399›Full record

ReviewNPJ precision oncology2019

Liquid biopsy: one cell at a time.

Su Bin Lim, Wen Di Lee, Jyothsna Vasudevan, Wan-Teck Lim, Chwee Teck Lim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ precision oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Current Status and Future Perspectives of Molecular Residual Disease Testing in Genitourinary Cancers.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Su Bin Lim1NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences & Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-1752-7039
Wen Di Lee2Department of Biomedical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Jyothsna Vasudevan2Department of Biomedical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Wan-Teck Lim4Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Chwee Teck Lim1NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences & Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4019-9782

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As an alternative target to surgically resected tissue specimens, liquid biopsy has gained much attention over the past decade. Of the various circulating biomarkers, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have particularly opened new windows into the metastatic cascade, with their functional, biochemical, and biophysical properties. Given the extreme rarity of intact CTCs and the associated technical challenges, however, analyses have been limited to bulk-cell strategies, missing out on clinically significant sources of information from cellular heterogeneity. With recent technological developments, it is now possible to probe genetic material of CTCs at the single-cell resolution to study spatial and temporal dynamics in circulation. Here, we discuss recent transcriptomic profiling efforts that enabled single-cell characterization of patient-derived CTCs spanning diverse cancer types. We further highlight how expression data of these

Indexed as

NanobiotechnologyTumour biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID31602399
PMCPMC6775080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.